Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Guru Overseas Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 1 February, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(120)ELT209(TRI-DEL)
ORDER G.R. Sharma, Member (T)
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Collector (Appeals) holding -
"I find that the appellants deny the right of modification of the classification list on the ground that the earlier approved classification lists were at variance with the impugned approval. This is not acceptable. It is noticed that the appellants themselves have not been consistent in their claims and been primarily guided by the effective rate of duty on the said goods. They have invariably opted for a lower rated chapter classification. Besides; the same car seats are usable as O.E. and accessories. Admittedly without seats the vehicle is incomplete and unusable. So far as the cited order of the Collector Central Excise, Delhi is concerned, it is established that the final order has been passed holding that the impugned show cause notices were time barred. Therefore, it has no quotable or precedent value. I hold that the impugned order-in-original is maintainable and is upheld. The appeal is hereby rejected".
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants filed a Classification List describing the goods as Articles of Leather (Others) car seat covers claiming classification thereof Under Chapter Heading 4201.90 and further claiming the benefit of duty under Notification No. 27/93 dt. 28-2-1993. The other item was described by them as "made-up Textile Articles" Car Seat Covers claiming classification thereof under Chapter Heading 6301.00 and claiming the benefit of Notification No. 65/87 dt. 1-3-1987. The Department alleged that these items are integral part of car seat and that there was a specific heading for classifying such type of goods. Accordingly, a SCN was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why the goods should not be classified under Chapter sub-heading 9401.00. In their written submissions and reply to the SCN, the appellants submitted that the goods in question are not integral parts of car seats but are being sold by them as additional covers for car seats; that these goods can be termed as car accessories; that car seat covers which are integral part of car seats are commonly known as Seat Trim Sets (parts of seats of Chapter 9401.00) that the goods i.e. Leather and Non-Leather which are being sold by them as additional covers are classifiable under Chapter heading 87.08 w.e.f. 20-4-1986, 1-4-1987 and 1-3-1988. The Asstt. Collector confirmed the classification of the goods under Chapter sub-heading 94.01. Against this order the appellants filed the appeal before the Collector (Appeals) who ordered as above.
3. Arguing the case Shri Rajneesh, ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the goods manufactured and cleared by them are not parts of car seats but they are additional covers for car seats which may be termed accessories. He submits that the Department's contention that they are integral parts of car seats is not correct inasmuch as they are additional covers and additional covers cannot be integral parts of car seats. He, therefore, submitted that the items may be classified under Chapter heading 87.08. In support of his contention he cited the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Kirloskar Pneumatics Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 207.
4. Shri V.M. Udhoji, Ld. DR in addition to reiterating the findings of the Ld. Asstt. Collector and Ld. Collector (Appeals) submits that the items manufactured by the appellants are admittedly meant for car seats and since they are meant and used in car seats, therefore, they are parts of car seats. He, therefore, submitted that the authorities below have rightly held that the goods are classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 94.01.
5. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the Department holds that the goods are classifiable under Chapter heading 94.01. Chapter heading 94.01 reads "Seats (other than those of heading No. 94.02) whether or not convertible into beds, and parts thereof".
Whereas the assessee has claimed classification of the product under Chapter heading 87.08, this heading reads "Parts & accessories of the motor vehicles of heading Nos. 87.01 to 87.05".
The goods manufactured by the appellants are made either of leather or textile material. The goods are additional cover for seats of cars. They are not parts of cars. If they are not parts of cars then they are out of Chapter heading 94.01 in-as-much as Chapter Heading 94.01 covers seats and parts thereof. Whether the goods are accessories, it has been indicated that the goods are additional seat covers, additional seat covers are commonly known and traded in the market as accessories and since they are accessories of cars, therefore, we find force in the contention of the appellant that additional seat covers manufactured by them are accessories and are classifiable under Chapter Heading 87.08. We find support for holding that they are accessories from the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Kirloskar Pneumatics Ltd. cited above. The word accessories has been defined in McGraw Hill Dictionary, Vth Edition as "A part sub-assembly, or assembly that contributes to effectiveness of a piece of equipment without changing its basic function; may be used for testing, adjusting, or other purpose".
6. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehra Bros. v. Joint Commercial Officer reported in 1991 (51) E.L.T. 173 ruled that "The correct test to determine whether an article is an accessory or not is whether the article or articles in question would be adjunct or accompaniment or an addition for the convenient use of another part of the main article or adds to the beauty, elegance or comfort or the use of main article or a supplementary or secondary to the main or primary importance. Whether ah article or part is an accessory cannot be decided with reference to its necessity to its effective use of the article in question as a whole. The general adaptability may be relevant but may not by itself be conclusive. For instance Stereo or Air conditioner designed and manufactured for fitment in a motor car, are not absolutely necessary or generally adapted, but when they are fitted to the vehicle undoubtedly it would add comfort or enjoyment in the use of the vehicle. Another test may be whether a particular article or articles or parts can be said to be available for sale in the market, shops or places of manufacture where the main article is available for sale. These tests may not be conclusive but is given only by way of illustration. The view that the accessory as a part must contribute for convenience of effectiveness in the use of the article to which it is attached as a whole, is not a correct test".
7. We note that leather and textile seat covers are not parts of seats. They are only used for comfort, convenience and sleek look of the seats before to make sitting on them comfortable and convenient and thus, they are not parts of seats but are actually accessories of car seats. Examining the goods in dispute in the light of the above discussion, we hold that they are accessories and are correctly classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 87.08.
8. In view of the above findings, the appeal is allowed. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellant in accordance with law.